Discussion in 'Flight MH17' started by Mick West, Oct 13, 2015.
What lies did he tell? And can you provide sources.
View attachment f2976a52d2bc43138babd6261192f7f7.bmp_.jpg
As we can see 3rd layer of fragments do not cover end of warhead. It is not have sense for equal angle distribution of fragments. Because it is have as result the strip without impacts. I suppose that end parts of warhead must provide another speed of fragments and another direction that must give a matching the affected area with low speed fragments from top of warhead. And as I can see real warhead have a reverse curvature for end (fig. 4.3).
AA demonstrated it here.
Mick then altered some of the input, but it showed the same problem. I pointed that out here and it was unrefuted.
I then pointed it out again in this thread.
Is there a credible argument against it?
No idea, I'm sure one can be made.
I just wanted to make sure your assertion had some demonstrated reasoning behind it, as it wasn't in that post.
It is looks like a critical bug for MH17 report. The strip without impacts means that incorrect geometry for warhead surface was used. It seems that all subsequent results must be corrected.
I'm not so sure. AA, the weapon manufacturer, made this point. It was perhaps the major point they made. Yet, the Dutch report completely sidestepped the issue. Or perhaps the Ukrainians vetoed this issue from the report?
We can't know because of the secrecy of the whole investigation.
Just same arguments as before.
Damage on roof, co-pilot area dont fit well with A-A version. One addition - passengers dont have pellets in their bodies. That mean - no way for strike elements trajectory "fore-aft".
How 3rd layer affect on fragment distribution by angle? Why static warhead must have strip without impact?
One of good source
Peter Haisenko talks nonsense about MH17
The title says 'MH 17 - downing by Ukrainian SU-25 is proven' (March 7, 2015) which would be the first lie. He goes on about how MH 17 was hit by a R 60M missile and then by cannon fire from different directions.
He continues claiming the damage could not be caused by a BUK missile and on top of that claims, that Putin's presidential plane was the target and MH 17 just happened to be in the wrong place. So basically everything he says is just a big, fat lie.
So you claim the Dutch willinging faked a report concerning the death of 193 of their citizens to cover up for the Ukraine?
Сontrariwise, were is no 3rd layer must be anoter distribution by angle. I suppose that may controlled by geometry of warhead surface. The strip must be missing as for static so for dynamic.
The strip without impacts (from tno model) it is result of short 3rd layer of fragments for equable distribution by angle. This result is not lancet. This is fork. It is a meaningless result for warhead developers. If we accept the hypothesis that 3rd short layer of fragments was selected by developers that make fragment steam more denser, then angle distribution must be changed for end part of warhead.
What were you expecting? At those velocities and with the proximity of the missile most of the warhead fragments would have passed clean through the Boeing 777.
It leads to the question why are the Russians really puzzled about the bow-tie fragments being found? The Russians do like to dangle these type of questions and let the rumour mill do their work for them. This was evident in the Russian Ministry of Defence briefing and it allowed the conspiracy mill to run riot with them.
I've not checked yet but has the conspiracy mill started turning yet with claims that the bow-tie fragments have been planted?
Sorry, but it is not honest simulation. Let me explain. Look at AA prsentation.
View attachment d15c482b07709937e39021f9c5c0bb7e.bmp_.jpg
As i think the main idea of AA is that a plane with maximum damage must match to lancet plane. This is a resanoble idea, do you agree? For correct check you must check the idea but not the numbers values from AA. Because diffrent models give you diffrent values for same idea.
As well, the TNO make such mistake too.
View attachment ff295bfea5b23197b25031f556e94e0d.bmp_.jpg
What is mean slip of main damage area on cabin from AA request and TNO result? Nothing, besides that AA and TNO use a different models. AA take values from one model, TNO input in another result is intact left-forward cabin window.
For corrcet check of the AA angle version [-72, 22] TNO must recount AA explosion coorditants so that damage area was like in AA presentation for TNO model.
AA is not agree with TNO angle, but AA make calculation lunch area by TNO request. TNO may be disagree with new blust coordinats, however it must be done and published.
That what we can see at Fig A7 is not conscionable examination of AA angle version.
1. warhead dont have lancet
2. barrel-like warhead design developed for produce wide angle fragment distribution for cancel error in guidance and detonation point, so illegal to talk about maximum damage
3. AA presented absolutely stupid presentation which based on wrong idea - simulating dynamic field of strike elements (and damage pattern from it) by static warhead
4. can you show on 7A Fig how co-pilot was killed? and what splinters leave visible tracks on roof (glance hits which clearly show direction to detonation point)?
Do you agree with fork from MH17 report? If yes it is enough. It is example how to make uneven angle density, only in wrong direction.
Why illegal? It is profitably to get distribution like probability target position. If your algorithm of intercept get normal direction to target, will be right use warhead with max density of fragments in normal direction.
I see on your 4 question and i think that you dont understand what I wrote about 7A. I suppose that you dont understand AA too.
Im agree with launch from direction on Snizhne.
Again - barrel-like warhead have wide disclosure angles of pellets so you cannot have maximum damage. You have instead of maximum damage - maximum area with good density. For maximum damage need to use aimable warhead or specific shape.
Yes, im dont understand ppl which trying to lie. AA builded own version of damage, but TNO build own on AA info about warhad. Who lied? AA lied because they trying to manipulate with data so results is different from independent science group.
You do realize that this is just a 2D modell? The Fragments of the warhead would of course travel in a 360° from the detonation.
Which how real disinformation works. Why should any government bother to spread lies when all they need to do is pose a few questions and twist a few facts and then let the conspirasphere do the work for them.
Not that any CT worth their salt will ever see it that way.
You said that Oleg Storchevoy told lies. What lies did he tell. Otherwise you should withdraw it.
I linked to a quote from Oleg Storchevoy, the deputy head of Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency, and you said he lied about missiles. What lies did Oleg Storchevoy, tell?
What is your point?
I'm saying the report sidetepped the issue. It didn't explain it. The rest is speculation until we know more about how the whole investigation operated and what Ukraines role was
Actually Mick you were right, i was wrong at the 44 minute mark they confirm that they did the tests to confirm their theories. Which include the launch site.
Almaz Antey, in their test, placed a missile in the position it would have been had it come from Snizhne. When they did this fragments came out the starboard side.
Yet on the actual plane there is no evidence of this. No fragments coming out the starboard side. Which means the evidence does not support Snizhne.
You can see this at the 1.01.00 mark in the above video.
Who said starboard side dont have exit holes?
My point is that the fragments are moving in a cone away from the detonation thus damage to the left engine is not only possible but very likely.
There are no fragment exit holes in that photo!
added in edit:
And the DSB report says.
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf Section 2.8 whichs appears to be page 21
section 2.4 mentions one exit hole at the
but the decided not to say precisely where
Not according to the missile manufacturer or according to Mick's simulation. So why is your simulation different to both AA's and Micks?
One last try: Mick's model is (and he wrote that himself several times) two-dimensional which is realistic enough when we talk about the damage to the cockpit only. But the 9N314M warhead naturaly explodes three-dimensional. And even on the 2D model you can see that the left engine lies in the path of the debris of the missile.
But not in the path of warhead fragments. Any claim that this damage is from debris needs to be weighed against the actual test done by AA and their arguments. This occurs from the 45.00.00 mark in the video linked to in post 66. Unfortunately it is an English translation and because the whole video is only 2 hours they don't go into enough detail. So hopefully they will present a report
According to report, elevation angle was only 10 degrees
No, they placed the missile in a position that conforms to their conclusion. They have not demonstrated exactly how they determine the exact range, attitude, heading or velocity relative to target, at the point of demonstration in any way.
Edit: Static missile against a small, static section of a different type of aircraft aircraft, at ground level.
I think I love merabulk
I heard the conference I would like to point out something important that was mentioned on the conference.
BUK shot down m17. We should talk to the guy who makes BUKs?
Weapon manufacture who makes KUM missiles and programes BUK flight pastern declassified 9M38M1 missile (as fox news claimed) and performed two explosions in simulated conditions from place based damages and existing evidence.
1. They gathered raw data and physical evidence of derby, shrapnel, shrapnel dust and footage of damages and released it to public. (That would be admissible in court, but it was dismissed from official investigation.)
2. They took collected data and input it into their supercomputer and ran a million simulations which confirmed official statement of the weapon manufacturer. They released both results and modeling application for public. Anyone who questions mathematics can have access to the actual RAW data and prove or disprove math their official statement. (It was dismissed in official investigation.)
3. The weapons manufacturer officially agreed to answer any related to the invention questions to officials and journalists, http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/contacts/. 100 journalists asked the weapon manufacturer questions, nobody in charge of investigation of M17 asked them anything for 1 year of the investigation. (I guess they found someone who knows those missiles better than manufacturer of those missiles.)
4. They agreed to participate in any political motivated or independent investigations with their specialists and missiles to perform any other trials. (Also dismissed, what official would want to question his own official statement, only independent players of metabuk to it for the truth).
5. The weapon manufacture stated that they are sure that it was a different older model of the missile 9M38 that brought down m17. 9M38 stopped production in 1985, that those missiles expiration date ended in 2011 and all those missiles were destroyed. If anyone (including military) in Russia were to have that missile anywhere he would serve 15 years in prison. They said that they could disclose service request stab from Ukraine officials to extend lifetime of 9M38. Manufacturer declared that they sold Ukraine x516 9M38 missiles. They don't know what Ukrainians did with them.
Western reporters asked nothing of value, don't want to bore you guys.
A Russian reporter, raised a question I wanted to ask myself. So, if a BUK would fire from location you said it did, could BUK reach the target by itself or it needed a proper radar to guide it? Weapon manufacture replayed it BUK could reach M17 by itself, we think missile fly 28-30 kilometers and it was nearly at limit. It may needed needed a bigger radar to guide system. Passenger airplanes have huge signature radius. I don't think it would have been a problem for a single BUK to fire and hit as big a target as Boeing 777-200ER in clear day. You can find transcript of the report
During official investigation m17 statement they said Ukraine air force lost 60 military aircraft, none of those were shot down by BUK.
1. 60 aircraft prior to M17, seems like those east Ukrainians didn't need a BUK to shoot down anything. SA7 and SA10 did the job just fine and east Ukrainians began successful counter offensive against official Ukraine Army because they lost their air force capabilities at that time. There was no need for a BUK because there were no cruise missiles or high altitude bombers to attack. SA10 can down everything Ukraine Air force has in it's inventory!!!
2. M17 was only airplane that was shut down by a BUK in that area or ever in history of mankind.
da rebel army
17 July 2014
M17 was shot down
18 July 2014
Instant allowed access to crash site
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/ukraineTripod.jpg (source http://www.tribwatch.com/up/updateIraq4Jul4.htm)
21 July 2014
Gathered, secured and turn over all remains of m17 and bodies of victims and turn over black boxes
they released everything they found to officials from Netherlands as soon as officials stopped trying to access crash site through Ukraine.
da commie red army
They release all radar actual data with M17 and Anti Aircraft radar signatures in the region to public 3 days after the event. Apparently, Russian Army paid close attention to a war at it's boarder. Especially after shells hit Russian custom checkpoints and villages on boarder with Ukraine.
Transparency level 9000.
I like metabunk, keep it up you guys.
No they did both. If you tune in to the video at the 58 minute mark you will see the second test.
The video presentation can be a little hard to follow. Here is a slideshow version.
The whole slideshow comes up. If not appropriate can a mod remove .
According to report, Almaz-Antey's model elevation angle was 22 degrees (see page 140 of the report)
3D models by
Missile from Snizhne
Missile from Zarochenskoe
Separate names with a comma.